I should also add, that until the day the government chooses to cover all of us for healthcare, we should have the option of carrying whomever we choose on our healthcare plan so long as we are willing to foot the bill for the premiums. If Junior wants to cover his parents because his dad lost his job and mom was a housewife, that should be his choice. If Judy wants to cover her significant other Jill, that's her choice. If I want to cover a cousin who just graduated from college and can't find a job, that's my choice so long as I pay the premiums.

This entire argument is asinine. The constitution calls for separation of church and state and yet marriage is a religious concept which has become a legal one and in order to provide equal rights to other groups, the definition of marriage has to be re-written, which goes against the Bible's teachings. This upsets the Christians.

Marriage should ONLY be a religous symbol as defined by the Bible. If you can get the church to provide the ceremony and the certificate, you are married, husband and wife, spouses. It should be defined as per the Bible - one woman and one man.

Legal issues should be considered personal partnerships - not marriages. Anyone who desires such a partnership - whether gays, a straight couple, two old-maid sisters who live together, the uncle and the nephew who works for him, should be able to form personal partnerships. It can be a partnership of two or more than two people. Minor children are part of the partnership of the parents until they reach adulthood. Therefore, all income taxes are taxed at a flat rate (no marriage penalty) with personal deductions for each person. All assets are inherited by the remaining personal partners, and if a partnership is dissolved, it is split equally amongst the adult partners.

Heterosexual couples would likely want to be married in the church and considered "married" and husband and wife, but it is not legal until the personal partnership paperwork is filled out. Gays and other groups would be considered legal partners but not married. They have partners - not husbands or wives.

Gays would have equal legal rights just as any other groups wanting to form partnerships, which is not based on sexual relations. It is based on business and convenience and likely some type of love - whether sexual or platonic, but not necessary.

I mean, really now, we can go on debating this entire thing until one side loses, but we don't need to have a winner and a loser - we CAN all be winners.

This entire argument is asinine. The constitution calls for separation of church and state and yet marriage is a religious concept which has become a legal one and in order to provide equal rights to other groups, the definition of marriage has to be re-written, which goes against the Bible's teachings. This upsets the Christians.

Marriage should ONLY be a religous symbol as defined by the Bible. If you can get the church to provide the ceremony and the certificate, you are married, husband and wife, spouses. It should be defined as per the Bible - one woman and one man.